DOCSLIB.ORG

No Compromise on Reparations1 Knesset Session 77, 6.5.1952

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

330 [28] No Compromise on Reparations1 Knesset Session 77, 6.5.1952 Speaker Ze’ev Sheffer: Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee has the floor. MK Meir Argov (Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mapai): Mr. Speaker, members of the Knesset, On 15.1.52 the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee made the following decision: “Following the government’s statement to the Knesset and the authority vested in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by the Knesset, and after the committee heard the preliminary assumptions according to which the government seeks to act, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee decides to authorize the government to act on the question of reparations from Germany, including the possibility of direct negotiations, in accordance with present needs and circumstances. Once the government has determined its plan of action for the first stage, a report will be submitted to the Committee.” In accordance with that decision, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee heard two reports on the stages of negotiations on reparations with the Bonn government and was provided with comprehensive information by the government in this regard. In light of those reports, I should note that in these negotiations the Israeli delegation appeared with national dignity and responsibility and conducted itself in accordance with the instructions given to it by the government and within the limits set by the Knesset through the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. The full collaboration between the Israeli delegation and that of Jewish organizations from around the world should also be noted with great satisfaction. During the negotiations it transpired that the Bonn government set the overall sum of the reparations to Israel at less than the sum specified by our 1 Earlier on in this Knesset meeting, a no-confidence motion was forwarded by the Herut Party in protest against the government’s policy regarding negotiations with West Germany on reparations. The motion was defeated by 57 votes against 3 (43 abstained). DOI 10.1515/9783110255386.330, , published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. Knesset, 6.5.1952 331 government in its note to the occupying powers – the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. In addition, the German delegation did not make a definite commitment that this sum would be paid but rather that it regards the sum determined – $715 million – as a nominal sum, in recognition of the debt only, without determining what sums will actually be paid. The German delegation decided that payments and dates would be conditional upon the settlement of Germany’s overall debt to various states that was deliberated at the London Conference. On this basis the Israeli delegation suspended the negotiations in order to receive fresh instructions from the government of Israel. After hearing the details of the negotiations, the committee proposed that the Knesset note the following decision: “The committee recommends to the government non-renewal of the negotiations between the Israeli and West German delegations until the Bonn government submits a clear and binding proposal to meet Israel’s claim for reparations, including dates of payment. The committee expresses its confidence that it will be given the opportunity of discussing such a proposal prior to a final government decision on whether to accept or reject it.” When the Knesset reached its decision on the reparations claim from Germany, it viewed the claim as restitution of part of what was plundered from the Jewish people by the German people, since the value of the Jewish property lost to the Nazis is greatly in excess of the sum that the Bonn government is required to pay. However, we emphasized more than once that neither the government of Israel nor the Jewish people in the Diaspora view these reparations as atonement or conciliation for mass murder. With this decision, the Knesset viewed it as a great privilege to determine a historical fact that there is a claimant for the plundered Jewish property and that the government of Israel together with world Jewish organizations would claim reparations. The State of Israel and its people do not imagine that this obligation can be avoided by unrealistic assurances, evading payment within a reasonable period and by delaying tactics. We think that we must again exert all possible pressure – including world opinion and the influence of the occupying powers – on the German government and people to meet this claim. This House would do well to unite behind this claim. The Bonn government should know that it will not evade the issue and that we will continue to voice this claim everywhere and at every opportunity, for the plundered property, which is ours, will be channeled to building the Jewish homeland and the rehabilitation of the survivors of the Nazi sword, and that all the aforementioned is apart from the claim by Jewish communities throughout the world. From this podium we must announce to the entire world the renewal of our claim with all our moral, Jewish and political force. We must see to it that all available political factors are harnessed towards this purpose. 332 Knesset, 6.5.1952 I recommend that the Knesset accept the committee’s proposal. I will respond to the rest of the reservations after hearing their rationale. MK Yaakov Riftin (Mapam): Members of the Knesset, the crisis in the negotiations between the Israeli and Germany delegations occurred at a very early stage. It seems that even the most pessimistic members in this House assumed that the Bonn government would make use of more complex and honorable means of camouflaging its intentions. The Germans advanced an incredibly satanic proposal. They proposed a moral agreement between the Bonn government and the government of Israel regarding a certain sum which would be negotiated by both governments together at the London conference. This means that we are to award moral and political rehabilitation to the Bonn government without any concrete financial conclusions and that Bonn and the government of Israel would be fighting together against the occupying powers. The State of Israel should not stop its struggle for obtaining reparations to the state and the Jewish people. But it should do so through the occupying powers. Direct negotiations should be terminated. It should not be forgotten that while the concrete financial significance of these negotiations has declined, their negative political weight has soared. Dr. Adenauer and his government are desperately attempting to make West Germany the main basis for starting a new world war. Is there any justification for conducting negotiations through which the prestige of this government, which sees itself as a vital factor in the preparations for a third world war, is enhanced? If only there had been at least some economic benefit from the continuation of negotiations! But it is already obvious today that any such benefit would be strictly limited, and thus the Knesset must ask itself whether such a benefit should be preferred to continuing the Jewish people’s consistent struggle against the revival of Nazism, against making Germany an aggressive base, against the plan of igniting a new world war. The Knesset must decide to stop the negotiations with the Bonn government. MK Yochanan Bader (Herut): Mr. Speaker, members of the Knesset, what are Germans interested in most? They are interested in the negotiations themselves so that they can sit with the Jews, so that the world can see that the Jews do not hate them all that much, that the Jews relate to Germans as decent debtors who can be trusted, that they can be negotiated with, and everything will be fine. That is the most important thing for the Germans. The second, no less important factor, is the agreement itself. The third factor – as there is to be an agreement – is the step towards conciliation, and anything you say from this podium will not change it. When there is an agreement with Germans on $700 million, it will mean compromise, forgiveness, peacemaking, and at the very least the opening Knesset, 6.5.1952 333 of a path towards compromise and forgiveness. The fourth factor, which they are not interested in at all, is real payment. And finally, what they most certainly do not want is quick payment. Due to this order of priorities, and since the chronological order runs from the negotiations to the agreement and then to the payment, we – that is you, the government – must give the Germans everything they want in advance. You have already given them the contact and the togetherness, and you have not received a thing. You have already given the Germans the agreement – perhaps there will be an agreement – but an agreement is not payment. Once an agreement is reached, what will the Germans care about paying or not paying? If they do not pay they will be bad debtors, but what do the murderers, the Nazis care, the people who brought about a world war and murdered six million Jews and certainly many more millions of others. What do they care if the Jews say the German debtor cannot be trusted? The world has known this for a long time: they have never paid their debts, and they will not pay you this time, either. But they will have their negotiations, the Germans will have direct contact, the Germans will possibly have an agreement. This is the road you are taking, you no longer think about honor or pride, and you are under pressure. Pressure of this kind, gentlemen, is a very bad counselor. You are taking a very bad road, and not only will you hurt tens of thousands of people like me in this country, not only will you sully national honor, not only will you aid the Germans, but you will obtain no money.
Recommended publications
  • Jabotinsky Institute in Israel Peres, Netanyahu and Edelstein Praise

    Jabotinsky Institute in Israel Peres, Netanyahu and Edelstein Praise

    Jabotinsky Institute in Israel Published by the Hon. Chairman Jabotinsky Institute in Israel Mr. Yitzhak Shamir Z"L Founder and first director: Former Prime Minister of Israel ז"ל Joseph Pa'amoni Volume 52 Octobre 2013 ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו מעיין בכרך "לאומיות ליברלית" מאת Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu looks through volume ז'בוטינסקי, שהגישו לו )משמאל( ד"ר קרני רובין־ז'בוטינסקי, יוסי Liberal Nationalism, given to him by members of Institute אחימאיר, מרדכי שריג וכן עמירם בוקשפן. .Executive Board Peres, Netanyahu and Edelstein Praise New Volume of the Works of Jabotinsky - Liberal Nationalism “Your renewed publication of the Works of Jabotinsky, edited the new book, that he has had the honor of reading a number by Prof. Arye Naor and translated by Peter Kriksunov and of Jabotinsky’s works in their original language—Russian. He Hamutal Bar-Yosef, marks an important theoretical stratum lauded the Jabotinsky Institute for this project and stated that there in the research of Jabotinsky’s doctrine,” wrote President was a great need to aid the Institute to continue this praiseworthy Shimon Peres in a thank-you letter to the director general endeavor. of the Jabotinsky Institute in Israel for the book Liberal Liberal Nationalism, the first volume in the new series of Nationalism by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky’s ideological works, is edited by Professor Arye Naor. Currently the book is being produced by the Jabotinsky Institute Peres added, “The reader of Jabotinsky’s writings cannot help but be in an annotated edition featuring new translations to Hebrew from moved by the liberalism so inherent in his doctrine, by Jabotinsky’s such languages as Russian, Yiddish and English.
  • American Jewish Year Book

    American Jewish Year Book

    AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK A Record of Events iind Trends in American and World Jewish Life 1979 AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE AND JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA The 1979 AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK, the seventy-ninth in the series, continues to offer a unique chronicle of developments in areas of concern to Jews throughout the world. The present volume features Professor Charles Liebman s "Leadership and Decision-making in a Jewish Federation." This in- depth study of the New York Fed- eration of Jewish Philanthropies provides important insights into the changing outlook of American Jews, and the impact this is having on Jewish communal priorities. Another feature is Professor Leon Shapiro's "Soviet Jewry Since the Death of Stalin," an authoritative overview of Jewish life in the So- viet Union during the past twenty- five years. Particularly noteworthy is Professor Shapiro's emphasis on religious life and cultural endeavors. The review of developments in the United States includes Milton Ellerin's "Intergroup Relations"; George Gruen's "The United States, Israel and the Middle East"; and Geraldine Rosenfield's "The Jewish Community Responds to (Continued on back flap) $15. American Jewish Year Book American Jewish Year Book 1 VOLUME 79 Prepared by THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE Editors MORRIS FINE MILTON HIMMELFARB Associate Editor DAVID SINGER THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE NEW YORK THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA PHILADELPHIA COPYRIGHT, 1978 BY THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE AND THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher: except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review to be printed in a magazine or newspaper.
  • Israel in 1982: the War in Lebanon

    Israel in 1982: the War in Lebanon

    Israel in 1982: The War in Lebanon by RALPH MANDEL LS ISRAEL MOVED INTO its 36th year in 1982—the nation cele- brated 35 years of independence during the brief hiatus between the with- drawal from Sinai and the incursion into Lebanon—the country was deeply divided. Rocked by dissension over issues that in the past were the hallmark of unity, wracked by intensifying ethnic and religious-secular rifts, and through it all bedazzled by a bullish stock market that was at one and the same time fuel for and seeming haven from triple-digit inflation, Israelis found themselves living increasingly in a land of extremes, where the middle ground was often inhospitable when it was not totally inaccessible. Toward the end of the year, Amos Oz, one of Israel's leading novelists, set out on a journey in search of the true Israel and the genuine Israeli point of view. What he heard in his travels, as published in a series of articles in the daily Davar, seemed to confirm what many had sensed: Israel was deeply, perhaps irreconcilably, riven by two political philosophies, two attitudes toward Jewish historical destiny, two visions. "What will become of us all, I do not know," Oz wrote in concluding his article on the develop- ment town of Beit Shemesh in the Judean Hills, where the sons of the "Oriental" immigrants, now grown and prosperous, spewed out their loath- ing for the old Ashkenazi establishment. "If anyone has a solution, let him please step forward and spell it out—and the sooner the better.
  • Curriculum Vitae Dr. Ofira Gruweis-Kovalsky Contact: Kefar Tabor P.O.B 256 Israel 15241 Home Tel: 972- 4- 6765634. Mobile: 972

    Curriculum Vitae Dr. Ofira Gruweis-Kovalsky Contact: Kefar Tabor P.O.B 256 Israel 15241 Home Tel: 972- 4- 6765634. Mobile: 972

    1 Curriculum Vitae Dr. Ofira Gruweis-Kovalsky Contact: Personal details: Kefar Tabor P.O.B 256 Israel 15241 Citizenship: Israeli Home Tel: 972- 4- 6765634. Languages: Hebrew and English Mobile: 972-52-3553384 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Academic rank Senior Lecturer, Zefat Academic College, Israel (2017- present) Associate researcher Herzl Institute University of Haifa, Israel (2009-present) Associate researcher at the HBI Brandeis University, USA (2015-present) Adjunct lecturer, MA and BA programs in Israel Studies, University of Haifa, Israel (2010–present). Lecturer, Zefat Academic College, Israel (2014-2017) Education 2009-2010: Post Doc. Department of Geography and Environment, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, "The History of Jerusalem as Israel Capital City". 2009: PhD, Summa cum Laude. 'Land of Israel Studies' Dept., University of Haifa. "The Vindicated and the Persecuted": Myth, Ritual, and Propaganda in the Herut Movement 1948-1965. 2006: MA, Magna cum Laude. 'Jewish History' Dept., University of Haifa. 'The Myth of the Altalena Affair and the Herut Movement'. 1980: BA, Jewish History Dept. and Land of Israel History Dept., Tel Aviv University. Israel. Certificates Mediator, Emek Yizrael Academic College, Israel (1999). Archive manager, Tel Hai Academic College and the Israel National Archives (1994). 2 Scholarly Positions: Head of the general studies division, Multidisciplinary Department, Zefat Academic College, Israel (2018-present) Senior Lecturer, Multidisciplinary Department, Zefat Academic College, Israel (2017-present) Lecturer, Multidisciplinary Department, Zefat Academic College, Israel (2014 -2017) Adjunct lecturer, Land of Israel Studies Dept., Jewish History Dept., University of Haifa. MA and BA programs (2010–present). Assistant editor, Ze’ev Jabotinsky's Ideological Writings.
  • Regulations and the Rule of Law: a Look at the First Decade of Israel

    Regulations and the Rule of Law: a Look at the First Decade of Israel

    Keele Law Review, Volume 2 (2021), 45-62 45 ISSN 2732-5679 ‘Hidden’ Regulations and the Rule of Law: A Look at the First decade of Israel Gal Amir* Abstract This article reviews the history of issuing regulations without due promulgation in the first decade of Israel. ‘Covert’ secondary legislation was widely used in two contexts – the ‘austerity policy’ and ‘security’ issues, both contexts intersecting in the state's attitude toward the Palestinian minority, at the time living under military rule. This article will demonstrate that, although analytically the state’s branches were committed to upholding the ‘Rule of Law’, the state used methods of covert legislation, that were in contrast to this principle. I. Introduction Regimes and states like to be associated with the term ‘Rule of Law’, as it is often associated with such terms as ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’.1 Israel’s Declaration of Independence speaks of a state that will be democratic, egalitarian, and aspiring to the rule of law. Although the term ‘Rule of Law’ in itself is not mentioned in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the declaration speaks of ‘… the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948.’2 Even when it became clear, in the early 1950s, that a constitution would not be drafted in the foreseeable future, courts and legislators still spoke of ‘Rule of Law’ as an ideal. Following Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper, one must examine the existence of the rule of law in young Israel as a ‘category of practice’ requiring reference to a citizen's daily experience, detached from the ‘analytical’ definitions of social scientists, or the high rhetoric of legislators and judges.3 Viewing ‘Rule of Law’ as a category of practice finds Israel in the first decades of its existence in a very different place than its legislators and judges aspired to be.
  • The Struggle for Hegemony in Jerusalem Secular and Ultra-Orthodox Urban Politics

    The Struggle for Hegemony in Jerusalem Secular and Ultra-Orthodox Urban Politics

    THE FLOERSHEIMER INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES The Struggle for Hegemony in Jerusalem Secular and Ultra-Orthodox Urban Politics Shlomo Hasson Jerusalem, October 2002 Translator: Yoram Navon Principal Editor: Shunamith Carin Preparation for Print: Ruth Lerner Printed by: Ahva Press, Ltd. ISSN 0792-6251 Publication No. 4/12e © 2002, The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Ltd. 9A Diskin Street, Jerusalem 96440 Israel Tel. 972-2-5666243; Fax. 972-2-5666252 [email protected] www.fips.org.il 2 About the Author Shlomo Hasson - Professor of Geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and deputy director of The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies. About the Research This book reviews the struggle for hegemony in Jerusalem between secular and ultra-orthodox (haredi) Jews. It examines the democratic deficit in urban politics formed by the rise of the haredi minority to power, and proposes ways to rectify this deficit. The study addresses the following questions: What are the characteristics of the urban democratic deficit? How did the haredi minority become a leading political force in the city? What are the implications of the democratic deficit from the perspective of the various cultural groups? What can be done in view of the fact that the non-haredi population is not only under-represented but also feels threatened and prejudiced by urban politics initiated by the city council? About the Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies In recent years the importance of policy-oriented research has been increasingly acknowledged. Dr. Stephen H. Floersheimer initiated the establishment of a research institute that would concentrate on studies of long- range policy issues.
  • Down with Britain, Away with Zionism: the 'Canaanites'

    Down with Britain, Away with Zionism: the 'Canaanites'

    DOWN WITH BRITAIN, AWAY WITH ZIONISM: THE ‘CANAANITES’ AND ‘LOHAMEY HERUT ISRAEL’ BETWEEN TWO ADVERSARIES Roman Vater* ABSTRACT: The imposition of the British Mandate over Palestine in 1922 put the Zionist leadership between a rock and a hard place, between its declared allegiance to the idea of Jewish sovereignty and the necessity of cooperation with a foreign ruler. Eventually, both Labour and Revisionist Zionism accommodated themselves to the new situation and chose a strategic partnership with the British Empire. However, dissident opinions within the Revisionist movement were voiced by a group known as the Maximalist Revisionists from the early 1930s. This article analyzes the intellectual and political development of two Maximalist Revisionists – Yonatan Ratosh and Israel Eldad – tracing their gradual shift to anti-Zionist positions. Some questions raised include: when does opposition to Zionist politics transform into opposition to Zionist ideology, and what are the implications of such a transition for the Israeli political scene after 1948? Introduction The standard narrative of Israel’s journey to independence goes generally as follows: when the British military rule in Palestine was replaced in 1922 with a Mandate of which the purpose was to implement the 1917 Balfour Declaration promising support for a Jewish ‘national home’, the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine gained a powerful protector. In consequence, Zionist politics underwent a serious shift when both the leftist Labour camp, led by David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), and the rightist Revisionist camp, led by Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky (1880-1940), threw in their lot with Britain. The idea of the ‘covenant between the Empire and the Hebrew state’1 became a paradigm for both camps, which (temporarily) replaced their demand for a Jewish state with the long-term prospect of bringing the Yishuv to qualitative and quantitative supremacy over the Palestinian Arabs under the wings of the British Empire.
  • Ambassador Gunnar Jarring's Mission to the Middle East As Special Representative of the Secretary-General

    Ambassador Gunnar Jarring's Mission to the Middle East As Special Representative of the Secretary-General

    S-0865-0002-26-00001 Expanded Number S-0865-0002-26-00001 Title Items-in-Peace-keeping operations - Middle East - Ambassador Gunnar Jarring's Mission to the Middle East as Special Representative of the Secretary-General Date Created 2211111967 Record Type Archival Item Container S-0865-0002: Peace-Keeping Operations Files of the Secretary-General: U Thant - Middle East Print Name of Person Submit Image SgaueoSignature of PersonesnSbi Submit --------------------------- "<1' Ck" -Th . Cs .CtA.&u - - CC.- v4 I - 1ý S NI fýaT44 AliEN 4 if fleet PC A I £2 A [CC i'¾ C4 'SW A' - "CCC' S Stc -p -, -A C if ,,.C' :1. C* . 1' UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR TO: U Tta~nt r,,nDATE: 22 November 1967 A: ~The Secretary-General)vvý1ýREEENE THROUGH:A S/C DE.- FR~OM: C . A. Stavropoulos DE: The Legal Counsel SUBJ ECT-- OBJET: Terms of Reference of the- Sertr Gnrls Representative for the Middle East 1. At your req~uest I am submitting herewith a preliminary analysis of the terms of reference of the Secretary-Generalts Representative for the Middle East. In this memorandum I am confining my comments to two important issues: (1) the functions of the Special Representative, and (2) the meaning of the term "States concerned". I have not in the present paper attempted. to analyze the "provisions and principles" in the resolu- tion which ý-provide the framework within which the Special Representative will operate. Functions of the Special Reoresentative 2. Security Council resolution 81/242?, adopted on 22 November 1967, in paragraph 3 "Reuet the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and.
  • Israel in the Occupied Territories Since 1967

    Israel in the Occupied Territories Since 1967

    SUBSCRIBE NOW AND RECEIVE CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN* FREE! “The Independent Review does not accept “The Independent Review is pronouncements of government officials nor the excellent.” conventional wisdom at face value.” —GARY BECKER, Noble Laureate —JOHN R. MACARTHUR, Publisher, Harper’s in Economic Sciences Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive a free book of your choice* such as the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. This quarterly journal, guided by co-editors Christopher J. Coyne, and Michael C. Munger, and Robert M. Whaples offers leading-edge insights on today’s most critical issues in economics, healthcare, education, law, history, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Thought-provoking and educational, The Independent Review is blazing the way toward informed debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! *Order today for more FREE book options Perfect for students or anyone on the go! The Independent Review is available on mobile devices or tablets: iOS devices, Amazon Kindle Fire, or Android through Magzter. INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE, 100 SWAN WAY, OAKLAND, CA 94621 • 800-927-8733 • [email protected] PROMO CODE IRA1703 The Last Colonialist: Israel in the Occupied Territories since 1967 ✦ RAFAEL REUVENY ith almost prophetic accuracy, Naguib Azoury, a Maronite Ottoman bu- reaucrat turned Arab patriot, wrote in 1905: “Two important phenom- W ena, of the same nature but opposed . are emerging at this moment in Asiatic Turkey. They are the awakening of the Arab nation and the latent effort of the Jews to reconstitute on a very large scale the ancient kingdom of Israel.
  • Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

    Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

    Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty Purpose 1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Preservation of life, 2. There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any body and dignity person as such. Protection of 3. There shall be no violation of the property of a person. property Protection of life, 4. All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and body and dignity dignity. Personal liberty 5. There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise. Leaving and entering 6. (a) All persons are free to leave Israel. Israel (b) Every Israel national has the right of entry into Israel from abroad. Privacy 7. (a) All persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy. (b) There shall be no entry into the private premises of a person who has not consented thereto. (c) No search shall be conducted on the private premises of a person, nor in the body or personal effects. (d) There shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation, or of the writings or records of a person. Violation of rights 8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required. Reservation 9.
  • JANUARY 10, 1980 Arabs Angered by Israeli Utility Move JERUSALEM (JTA) - a N~W Political and Arab Villages

    JANUARY 10, 1980 Arabs Angered by Israeli Utility Move JERUSALEM (JTA) - a N~W Political and Arab Villages

    R.I. JEWIS H HISTORICAL ASS OC 13 0 SESSI ON S ST . PROVIDEN C E , R I 02906 Support Read By Jewish More Thon Agencies 40,000 With Your People Membership_ TH E ONLY ENGLISH JEWISH WEEKLY IN R I ANO SOUTHEAST MASS VOLUME LXIII . NUMBER 11 TH ARY 10. 19 0 25' PER COPY El Al Manager Killed In Istanbul Miriam Researchers A warded Grant TEL AV1V (JTA) - Abraham Elazar, Cardiology at The Miriam, explained that manager of El Al in Istanbul, was shot to "we initially became invol"ed in the study death by unknown assassins who ambushed as one o f 33 collaborating centers his car as he drove home from his office at throughout the countr) . We hope that by the ai rpo rt. foll) describing the abnormalities peculiar T wo terrorist group, have claimed to people "ho get heart attacks we may responsibi lity ror the killing. Is rael, e,entuall) be able to accurately identify Transport Minister Haim Landau cabled his those people in our communit) who arc at Turkish counterpart to make every effort to pJrt,cular rt ~ for the development of heart apprehend the murderers and bring them to attack, but "'ho a re still free o f any tria l. )mptoms. " A p1:Cviously unknown terrorist group in The parent stud). known as the Beta­ Bei rut claimed that its gunmen killed Elazar Blocker Heart Attack Trial ( BHAT). in­ nee.ruse he was a "Zionist agent" and vohes studies of patients between the ages warned that it would continue to act against of 30-69 "ho ha,e sustarned recent heart at­ "agents of Zionism and imperialism" all tacks These studies "ill eventually involve over the worl'!I .
  • Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace (Israel and the Arabs 1948–1961)

    Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace (Israel and the Arabs 1948–1961)

    Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace (Israel and the Arabs 1948–1961) N. Israeli (Akiva Orr and Moshé Machover) Translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall ii Introduction [to the first edition]................................................................................... xv Chapter 1: “Following Clayton’s Participation in the League’s Meetings”................ 1 Chapter 2: Borders and Refugees ................................................................................. 28 Map: How the Palestinian state was divided............................................................ 42 Chapter 3: Israel and the Powers (1948-1955)............................................................. 83 Chapter 4: Israel and Changes in the Arab World ................................................... 141 Chapter 5: Reprisal Actions......................................................................................... 166 Chapter 6: “The Third Kingdom of Israel” (29/11/56 – 7/3/57).............................. 225 Chapter 7: Sinai War: Post-Mortem........................................................................... 303 Chapter 8: After Suez................................................................................................... 394 Chapter 9: How is the Problem to be Solved?............................................................ 420 Appendices (1999) ......................................................................................................... 498 Appendix 1: Haaretz article on the 30th anniversary of “Operation Qadesh”